NationStates Jolt Archive

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9D3ADEB0-381C-4415-97F3-503D0488D07F.htm


WTF???

No, gathering from that article, North Korea claims that the US has committed an act of war against it.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9D3ADEB0-381C-4415-97F3-503D0488D07F.htm


WTF???

They're not saying that it's war yet, they're saying that increased US pressure is akin to a declaration of war, of course, it wouldn't be new, just a reopening of hostilities that took a break just in time for my Grandfather not to be shipped over. Not only that, but it would also be a reopening of hostilities against the UN itself, so, gotta give the NK's props, they're brilliant.

This time, if the DPRK opens up war again, the PRC won't come to save their asses, when the UN forces push up to the Yalu.

I overheard the radio saying the as far as North Korea is concerned the Korean War never ended, so my limited knowledge of history leads me to believe that they've been at war with America for some time now.

Here's hoping China decides enough of their crap and steamrolls 'em.

No, gathering from that article, North Korea claims that the US has committed an act of war against it.
...and said they would have to respond with "physical measures".

Although, what could they do to us? They can't project power that far. The only thing I could see them doing is attacking South Korea by proxy -- and that would be suicide.

I overheard the radio saying the as far as North Korea is concerned the Korean War never ended, so my limited knowledge of history leads me to believe that they've been at war with America for some time now.

As far as international law is concerned, the Korean War never ended, actually. The armistice continues to hold, but technically, hostilities between the DPRK and the UN are still on.

...and said they would have to respond with "physical measures".

Although, what could they do to us? They can't project power that far. The only thing I could see them doing is attacking South Korea by proxy -- and that would be suicide.That's still not a declaration of war...

As far as international law is concerned, the Korean War never ended, actually. The armistice continues to hold, but technically, hostilities between the DPRK and the UN are still on.

Yay for never ending war!

Right technically the war has never stopped; this may be one of the main reasons for the Nucleair aspirations of North Korea...

I want to see China play a more active roll in enforcing peace and ceasing the provocation of "testing" nukes.


I dont want to see the US get involved until there is no choice and we are among a number of commited allies.

Yay for never ending war!Try the Punic Wars on for size. The hostilities didn't officially end until the Mayor of Rome and the Mayor of Tunis (standing in for Carthage) ended them in the 80s.

I want to see China play a more active roll in enforcing peace and ceasing the provocation of "testing" nukes.


I dont want to see the US get involved until there is no choice and we are among a number of commited allies.

China doesn't want to see refugees pouring across it's border and doesn't want to see a new regime, possibly hostile towards the Chinese's interests take hold in N. Korea. Because of that they won't do much against Kim's regime.

I want to see China play a more active roll in enforcing peace and ceasing the provocation of "testing" nukes.


I dont want to see the US get involved until there is no choice and we are among a number of commited allies.

Or, of course, we could just 'suck it up'... we have no complaints about ourselves and our buddies testing nukes. It's only a problem when the first-graders don't want to hand over their pocket money.

Here's hoping China decides enough of their crap and steamrolls 'em.

I dunno. Do we want North Korea to become China's smallest province? :(

I dunno. Do we want North Korea to become China's smallest province? :(As bad as that is, its better than what's currently going on there.

As bad as that is, its better than what's currently going on there.

For us.

For us.
As bad as China is, it ain't got nothing on NK. I think the North Koreans would be marginally better off.

dont forget there is one nation watching how this plays out who like to have nukes too

Or, of course, we could just 'suck it up'... we have no complaints about ourselves and our buddies testing nukes. It's only a problem when the first-graders don't want to hand over their pocket money.

North Korea WILL end up selling nuclear technology. They already sell missile technology, methamphetamines and counterfeit currency. Now that they are a nuclear power they think they'll be able to get away with selling nuclear weapons technology and nobody can touch them. That's why they need to be disarmed.

Shame all our forces are bogged down in Iraq.

let people kill eachother... but remember kim jong ils song in Team america?. he is probaly just lonely and tried of being bulled by someone he actually fancies (usa).

Or, of course, we could just 'suck it up'... we have no complaints about ourselves and our buddies testing nukes. It's only a problem when the first-graders don't want to hand over their pocket money.

Is testing nukes common these days? I feel naive- I dont recall hearing about any testing in a long time.

I would prefer no one "test" them anymore- the US, England, France or India. Ever.

But-I feel its a little more acceptable for one of our friends to do so, than say N.Korea or Iran.

Yes- call me a hypocrite- I dont care how my rules sound, as long as they suit me best. I'm not interested in fair or equal if there is a possibilty I'll lose an advantage.

Or, of course, we could just 'suck it up'... we have no complaints about ourselves and our buddies testing nukes. It's only a problem when the first-graders don't want to hand over their pocket money.

Except that we don't test nukes any more, nor does the UK, Israel, France or Russia. The most recent tests were nearly a decade ago, and they were conducted by India and Pakistan, and they both pissed us off when they did that.

North Korea WILL end up selling nuclear technology. They already sell missile technology, methamphetamines and counterfeit currency. Now that they are a nuclear power they think they'll be able to get away with selling nuclear weapons technology and nobody can touch them. That's why they need to be disarmed.

And what, the sun shines out of the arse of the US?

To a lot of people, the US is a much bigger threat than North Korea.

You notice our allies keep 'popping-up' nuclear, with no such big fuss?

As bad as China is, it ain't got nothing on NK. I think the North Koreans would be marginally better off.

Yes. Everyone is happier when the US invades them.

Yes. Everyone is happier when the US invades them.

Well, I doubt that North Korea would be worse off.

Shame all our forces are bogged down in Iraq.

its very hardly "all".

many are getting great training now.

Besides- If the US does have any involvement in N.Korea, I truly hope we dont put soldiers on the ground there. I feel that would be a huge mistake.
We already learned that lesson-I hope.

No-cruise missles and stealth bombing afterwards, then nothing.

Except that we don't test nukes any more, nor does the UK, Israel, France or Russia. The most recent tests were nearly a decade ago, and they were conducted by India and Pakistan, and they both pissed us off when they did that.

So - what you're saying is, now that WE have our weapons of mass destruction honed to a mass-destruction pinnacle, no one else should be allowed to seek the 'deterrent' potential we claim they give?

Well, I doubt that North Korea would be worse off.

Indeed. What kind of precedent would there be?

It's not like our meddling in the middle-east in recent years has turned the region into a hotbed of militancy and insurgency, now, is it?

Is testing nukes common these days? I feel naive- I dont recall hearing about any testing in a long time.

I would prefer no one "test" them anymore- the US, England, France or India. Ever.

But-I feel its a little more acceptable for one of our friends to do so, than say N.Korea or Iran.

Yes- call me a hypocrite- I dont care how my rules sound, as long as they suit me best. I'm not interested in fair or equal if there is a possibilty I'll lose an advantage.

The last "western" nuclear test was by the French in 1996, prior to that, the US set off an underground test in 1992, the Brits in 1991 and the Russians in 1990. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, by which the US abides, even though the Senate failed to ratify it.

Indeed. What kind of precedent would there be?

It's not like our meddling in the middle-east in recent years has turned the region into a hotbed of militancy and insurgency, now, is it?
Have you ever heard of a major East Asian terrorist organisation?

Have you ever heard of a major East Asian terrorist organisation?

Yes?

North Korea WILL end up selling nuclear technology. They already sell missile technology, methamphetamines and counterfeit currency. Now that they are a nuclear power they think they'll be able to get away with selling nuclear weapons technology and nobody can touch them. That's why they need to be disarmed.

I dont doubt for a second they will sell functioning warheads to any islamic terrorists-for cash or oil.

If they havent already. This could explain their current behavior. They are either very bold (with a yet to be discovered reason) or very foolish.

Either way-I am afraid the US is being deliberately baited into a disasterous confrontation. I am still thinking about all the meetings between the leaders of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and N.Korea.

I hope clear, level heads are paying close attention to all of this. And when the time comes, our action or inaction suits us best.

Right technically the war has never stopped; this may be one of the main reasons for the Nucleair aspirations of North Korea...

The Fact that there has not yet been a formal cassation of hostilities, the actual war is over for all intents and purposes the war has been over for 50 + years now. Just b/c we still call it war does not make it so. It would seem a more likely reason for the DPRK’s nuclear posturing has to do with recognition on the world stage, and prevention of a US invasion.

Were I a megalomaniacal dictator of an Axis of Evil nation, I would look at the war in Iraq and think, they didn’t have nukes and got their asses kicked, maybe I should have nukes for when the US comes after me.

GCz

So - what you're saying is, now that WE have our weapons of mass destruction honed to a mass-destruction pinnacle, no one else should be allowed to seek the 'deterrent' potential we claim they give?

Don't be ridiculous, I want every single nuke gone, preferably turned into fuel for reactors.

At the same time, we're slowly shrinking our nuclear arsenal. As with anything bureaucratic, it won't happen instantly, but step by step, the US and Russia are decreasing their nuclear capabilities.

A world with more nukes is completely and totally undesirable.

Yes?
Name one. I've only ever heard of Aum Shinirikyo, and they're hardly major. Not like they'd be affected by a war in North Korea anyway. The problem with the chaos in the Middle East is the terrorists all over the place, naturally, and an invasion of North Korea wouldn't have to deal with that obstacle so much.

The last "western" nuclear test was by the French in 1996, prior to that, the US set off an underground test in 1992, the Brits in 1991 and the Russians in 1990. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, by which the US abides, even though the Senate failed to ratify it.

Thanks-I'm surprised the French did just 10 years ago. It seems longer than that.

I dont feel any testing of nukes is necessary or acceptable today. Its too bad so many already have them-I dont feel anyone else should get them.

If anything, those that have them should be encouraged to reduce or give them up.

I would be pleased if the US were truly the only ones that had them.

The only other scenario acceptable to me would be if NO ONE at all had them, or the technology.

Were that the case though, biological weapons would probably be the prevalent WMD.

I dont know which is worse.

And what, the sun shines out of the arse of the US?

To a lot of people, the US is a much bigger threat than North Korea.

You notice our allies keep 'popping-up' nuclear, with no such big fuss?


The US has an obligation to defend it's interests and it's population. Doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks of it. International politics isn't about fairness or equality, it's about making sure your population and your economy are safe. Allowing the sale of nuclear technology to anyone who can afford to pay the price endangers the US, but it also endangers the rest of the world by making nuclear war more likely. In this area the USA's interests and the rest of the world's interests are identical.

Israel is the only nation that may have gotten nuclear weapons from the USA. Since their history has included numerous attacks from their neighbors and since there are many in their region who would like to destroy Israel, I think they have a legitimate need for those weapons to maintain peace through deterrance.

Have you ever heard of a major East Asian terrorist organisation?

Yeppers, in fact, an East Asian terrorist organization is the only one that has ever used WMD's in an attack. Aum Shinrikyo used Sarin Gas in the Tokyo Subway Gas Attack.

Try the Punic Wars on for size. The hostilities didn't officially end until the Mayor of Rome and the Mayor of Tunis (standing in for Carthage) ended them in the 80s.

What? :eek: There were treaties between Rome and Carthage after the 1st and 2nd PWs and I would think that leveling Carthage and sowing the ground round about with salt pretty much put an end to the 3rd. Not that I begrudge the two Mayors the photo-op. :p

Have you ever heard of a major East Asian terrorist organisation?

Aum shinrikyo. Used nerve gas on the Tokyo subway. They also had plans to develop more chemical and biological weapons.

As bad as China is, it ain't got nothing on NK. I think the North Koreans would be marginally better off.

Marginally? There are no pigeons in NK because the people have eaten them all.

As bad as that is, its better than what's currently going on there.

As bad as China is, it ain't got nothing on NK. I think the North Koreans would be marginally better off.

I meant, for us. Good for the North Koreans, although they'd be even better off if they reunified with South Korea.

Realisticly if NK launches a Nuclear strike then the US will bomb them back into the stone-age and it will be Game Over from Kim-Jong Il and the rest of his little club, along with 2 or 3 million North Korean civilians, so lets just hope little balding fat man decides it's best not to continue trying to piss of the world.

However, if history is anything to go by then NK will simply keep pushing until somebody snaps, and unfortunatly if past incidents are anything to go by the US doesn't like to be pushed much.

So - what you're saying is, now that WE have our weapons of mass destruction honed to a mass-destruction pinnacle, no one else should be allowed to seek the 'deterrent' potential we claim they give?

I freely admit that, yes-I do not want anyone else to have them, or their deterrent potential.

If I said anything to the contrary I'd wouldnt be telling the truth.

Shame all our forces are bogged down in Iraq.

Yeah...

But Saddam had to be stopped because he was trying to build nuclear...

oh, wait...:confused:

*snip* I hope clear, level heads are paying close attention to all of this. And when the time comes, our action or inaction suits us best.

Ummm....

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/webpics/george_w_bush.jpg

http://www.cjonline.com/images/012802/new.rumsfeld.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/jholbo/nutwork/images/Cheney,%20Dick.jpg

http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/images/karl-rove--140.jpg

Name one. I've only ever heard of Aum Shinirikyo, and they're hardly major. Not like they'd be affected by a war in North Korea anyway. The problem with the chaos in the Middle East is the terrorists all over the place, naturally, and an invasion of North Korea wouldn't have to deal with that obstacle so much.

Peoples War? CCOMPOSA? Al-Haramian (also Vazir and Al-Haramayn)? Liberation Tigers? Eat Turkestan Islamic Movement? East Turkistan Liberation Organisation? Chukaku Ha? The former JRA? Ranvir Sena? The former Khmer Rouge? Komando Jihad? Ananda Marga (now allegedly peaceful)? Liberation Army of the Free Papua Movement? The Japanese "Indigenous People's Federal Army"? Free Aceh Movement (current peace still holds since last winter)? Abdurajak Janjalani Brigade? Kumpulan Mujahidin Malaysia?

It depends on if you want only active groups... and what you consider 'major'. If you mean they are considered terrorist organisations, or have carried out terror acts, the list is fairly extensive.

As to whether Aum Shinirikyo is 'major'.... a matter for debate perhaps. Sarin gas attacks in cities sounds major. A suspected peak membership of some 40,000 people sounds major.

Peoples War? CCOMPOSA? Al-Haramian (also Vazir and Al-Haramayn)? Liberation Tigers? Eat Turkestan Islamic Movement? East Turkistan Liberation Organisation? Chukaku Ha? The former JRA? Ranvir Sena? The former Khmer Rouge? Komando Jihad? Ananda Marga (now allegedly peaceful)? Liberation Army of the Free Papua Movement? The Japanese "Indigenous People's Federal Army"? Free Aceh Movement (current peace still holds since last winter)? Abdurajak Janjalani Brigade? Kumpulan Mujahidin Malaysia?

It depends on if you want only active groups... and what you consider 'major'. If you mean they are considered terrorist organisations, or have carried out terror acts, the list is fairly extensive.

As to whether Aum Shinirikyo is 'major'.... a matter for debate perhaps. Sarin gas attacks in cities sounds major. A suspected peak membership of some 40,000 people sounds major.

way to terrify me.....

*goes to hide in the corner*

you have a tG...

Don't be ridiculous, I want every single nuke gone, preferably turned into fuel for reactors.

At the same time, we're slowly shrinking our nuclear arsenal. As with anything bureaucratic, it won't happen instantly, but step by step, the US and Russia are decreasing their nuclear capabilities.

A world with more nukes is completely and totally undesirable.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Ummm....

...snip...
http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/images/karl-rove--140.jpg

And this guy has absolutely nothing to do with the foreign policy process.

The US has an obligation to defend it's interests and it's population. Doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks of it. International politics isn't about fairness or equality, it's about making sure your population and your economy are safe. Allowing the sale of nuclear technology to anyone who can afford to pay the price endangers the US, but it also endangers the rest of the world by making nuclear war more likely. In this area the USA's interests and the rest of the world's interests are identical.

Israel is the only nation that may have gotten nuclear weapons from the USA. Since their history has included numerous attacks from their neighbors and since there are many in their region who would like to destroy Israel, I think they have a legitimate need for those weapons to maintain peace through deterrance.

The last part is bullshit. We show a special preference to Israel. They are certainly not the only nation to have border disputes, or be threatened or contested. Do you believe we should be giving nuclear technology to the Kurds? To Kashmir? Tibet, maybe?

The fact remains, there is ONE clear and obvious instance in which a major world power has traded this particular brand of mass destruction - and it was us.

WE cannot be trusted not to proliferate.

There is ONE clear and obvious instance in which a major power has USED this particular brand of mass destruction - and that was us too.

WE cannot be trusted to maintain a nuclear arms deterrent.

In terms of endangering the world by making nuclear war more likely... there has been one incident of use (us), and one brink-of-war event (us, again).

On the other hand, in terms of conventional military operations in sovereign nations... we aren't exactly scott-free there, either. Other nations NEED to be protected from US Imperial designs.

And this guy has absolutely nothing to do with the foreign policy process.

He's Bush's puppetmaster. Bush has something, just a little bit, to do with the foreign policy process.

He's Bush's puppetmaster. Bush has something, just a little bit, to do with the foreign policy process.
Nah, Rove only has influence over electoral politics, Cheney and Rumsfeld have near total control over foreign affairs.

All Rove does is sit around and plan election strategies, kinda like Mark Hanna 100 years ago.

The last part is bullshit. We show a special preference to Israel. They are certainly not the only nation to have border disputes, or be threatened or contested. Do you believe we should be giving nuclear technology to the Kurds? To Kashmir? Tibet, maybe?

The fact remains, there is ONE clear and obvious instance in which a major world power has traded this particular brand of mass destruction - and it was us.

WE cannot be trusted not to proliferate.

There is ONE clear and obvious instance in which a major power has USED this particular brand of mass destruction - and that was us too.

WE cannot be trusted to maintain a nuclear arms deterrent.

In terms of endangering the world by making nuclear war more likely... there has been one incident of use (us), and one brink-of-war event (us, again).

On the other hand, in terms of conventional military operations in sovereign nations... we aren't exactly scott-free there, either. Other nations NEED to be protected from US Imperial designs.

Who’s saying that proliferation is necessarily bad? The conventional wisdom of the 20th century was that MAD policies were all that kept the world for using WMDs in the fields of Korea and Vietnam. (I’ve always thought this is a little pos hoc ergo proctor hoc, but that’s just me)

And this guy has absolutely nothing to do with the foreign policy process.

If you believe that you're very naive. Hell, Colin Powell's former Cheif of Staff recently complained that Powell and Condoleeza Rice were shut out of planning meetings between Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove leading into the Iraq War. Rove will be the strategist that will sell whatever action the administration wants to take to the American people. He's probably the one behind the famous "Axis of Evil" remark. His signature is on the Project for a New American Century petition calling for regime change in Iraq along with Cheney's, Rumsfeld's and Wolfowitz's.

Nah, Rove only has influence over electoral politics, Cheney and Rumsfeld have near total control over foreign affairs.

All Rove does is sit around and plan election strategies, kinda like Mark Hanna 100 years ago.

Election strategies, speeches, political movements, and pretty much anything else Bush says or does.

i think that North Korea is showing off trying to be bigger than they really are
but thats just my opinion

If you believe that you're very naive. Hell, Colin Powell's former Cheif of Staff recently complained that Powell and Condoleeza Rice were shut out of planning meetings between Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove leading into the Iraq War. Rove will be the strategist that will sell whatever action the administration wants to take to the American people. He's probably the one behind the famous "Axis of Evil" remark. His signature is on the Project for a New American Century petition calling for regime change in Iraq along with Cheney's, Rumsfeld's and Wolfowitz's.

I’m not sure this is an accurate impression of Rove’s role in the Whitehouse. There have been times when he has had a huge domestic policy portfolio with some spill over into international. Granted he is a master spin doctor but to say that this is all he does is naïve. He has spent more time framing the issues of geo-politics into a neat package (ie war on terror) than just about anything else. POLITICS NO LONGER STOPS AT THE WATERS EDGE.

GCz

I think we should wait until the North Korean military rusts away there weapons are 50+ years old now and the army is poorly fed soon we will have an army of deformed children with pointy sticks (and if China comes round to cutting them off the process will be all the more sped up)

On that note is anyone else surprised that we still have sanctions to place on North Korea?

There is ONE clear and obvious instance in which a major power has USED this particular brand of mass destruction - and that was us too.
Under clearly extraordinairy circumstances.

WE cannot be trusted to maintain a nuclear arms deterrent.
Actually, the US can be trusted, as per the fact that there have been several situations in which use of nuclear weapons would have made life a whole lot easier for us, and we didn't.

In terms of endangering the world by making nuclear war more likely... there has been one incident of use (us), and one brink-of-war event (us, again).
I'd argue that the brink of war event was entirely the Russians fault, and specifically of Khruscschev's internal politicking within the Soviet bloc. The USSR wanted to show it was dominant, and was the center of "world communism."

If you believe that you're very naive. Hell, Colin Powell's former Cheif of Staff recently complained that Powell and Condoleeza Rice were shut out of planning meetings between Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove leading into the Iraq War. Rove will be the strategist that will sell whatever action the administration wants to take to the American people. He's probably the one behind the famous "Axis of Evil" remark. His signature is on the Project for a New American Century petition calling for regime change in Iraq along with Cheney's, Rumsfeld's and Wolfowitz's.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. I'm saying that Rove sells the stuff, but he has no influence over deciding it.

I’m not sure this is an accurate impression of Rove’s role in the Whitehouse. There have been times when he has had a huge domestic policy portfolio with some spill over into international. Granted he is a master spin doctor but to say that this is all he does is naïve. He has spent more time framing the issues of geo-politics into a neat package (ie war on terror) than just about anything else. POLITICS NO LONGER STOPS AT THE WATERS EDGE.

GCz

Isn't that what I said? :confused:

Under clearly extraordinairy circumstances.


All circumstances are 'clearly exceptional', if you are the people being clearly excepted.

The 'clearly exceptional' circumstances in that case were, we wanted to obliterate them, and they disliked the idea. SO we nuked them, and devil take the hindmost.


Actually, the US can be trusted, as per the fact that there have been several situations in which use of nuclear weapons would have made life a whole lot easier for us, and we didn't.


We used them once. That is enough, and makes us the most dangerous nation on the planet. We threatened to use them again. So, we are dangerous, AND we don't mind using the threat.


I'd argue that the brink of war event was entirely the Russians fault, and specifically of Khruscschev's internal politicking within the Soviet bloc. The USSR wanted to show it was dominant, and was the center of "world communism."

Of course it was the Russians. They wanted something of an empire, and we can't have that, now, can we? The fact that there WAS a 'brink-of-war' event means that there must have been (at least) two active players. Russia was one, and the other was the only nation ever to use the nuclear advantage in anger.

Who could that be?

That's pretty much what I'm saying. I'm saying that Rove sells the stuff, but he has no influence over deciding it.

Two things:

1. Selling it is a very important part of the process. The administration has to sell it's agenda to the American people and to Congress. If they didn't we'd have a draft and would be on the ground in Iran.

2. He is a signatory to an organization that called for and planned the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 1998. He is also one of the President's closest friends and confidants - closer than even Rumsfeld. I doubt he just sits in these closed door sessions and says, "Just tell me what you want to say and I'll tell you how to say it." Remember, Bush is really stupid so he needs people not to just tell him what to say, but also what to think.

Although, what could they do to us? They can't project power that far.


They can project power to South Korea and Japan. We have quite a few troops in South Korea, and last I checked Japan was hosting an entire US Marine division.


The only thing I could see them doing is attacking South Korea by proxy -- and that would be suicide.

I think you might be under a misconception as to what a war by proxy is. The Russians using the Vietnamese to fight us, that was a war by proxy - if North Korea invades South Korea, you're going to find UN troops on the same line as the southerners.

The last part is bullshit. We show a special preference to Israel. They are certainly not the only nation to have border disputes, or be threatened or contested. Do you believe we should be giving nuclear technology to the Kurds? To Kashmir? Tibet, maybe? Israel is an ally. We've got an interest in making sure they aren't overrun and exterminated.

The fact remains, there is ONE clear and obvious instance in which a major world power has traded this particular brand of mass destruction - and it was us. The Soviets gave Cuba missiles and sparked the Cuban missile crisis. Pakistan has sold nuclear technology.

WE cannot be trusted not to proliferate.

There is ONE clear and obvious instance in which a major power has USED this particular brand of mass destruction - and that was us too
WE cannot be trusted to maintain a nuclear arms deterrent.Yeah, one time during a WORLD WAR to avoid an invasion that would have killed many, many more soldiers and civilians than the two nuclear weapons did.
Sure. The Imperial Japanese and the Soviets were innocent. It's always the big bad USA that provokes every conflict. Shame on us.[QUOTE]

On the other hand, in terms of conventional military operations in sovereign nations... we aren't exactly scott-free there, either. Other nations NEED to be protected from US Imperial designs.Yeah, can't wait to conquer North Korea and add it to our empire. We desperately need their major resource, starving, brainwashed people.

All circumstances are 'clearly exceptional', if you are the people being clearly excepted.

The 'clearly exceptional' circumstances in that case were, we wanted to obliterate them, and they disliked the idea. SO we nuked them, and devil take the hindmost.

If we wanted to obliterate them, we could have just continued doing so with conventional weapons. No, we were attempting to force them to agree to our terms

Furthermore, my wording was extraordinairy, not exceptional. The circumstances in which atomic bombs were dropped on Japan have not occured since, nor has there been a Great Power War since World War 2. To view the decisioin through the lens of the modern world is to not understand the decision making processes of the time.

We used them once. That is enough, and makes us the most dangerous nation on the planet. We threatened to use them again. So, we are dangerous, AND we don't mind using the threat.
We threatened to use them if and only if the Soviets used them first. How the hell does that make us more dangerous?

Beyond that, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were dropped in 1945, that's a solid quarter of American history that's passed since those bombs were used. Furthermore, I do not hold the German or Japanese people of today responsible for the Second World War, and on equal token, the US should not be held responsible for any actions it took during said conflict. You're digging up ancient history here.



Of course it was the Russians. They wanted something of an empire, and we can't have that, now, can we? The fact that there WAS a 'brink-of-war' event means that there must have been (at least) two active players. Russia was one, and the other was the only nation ever to use the nuclear advantage in anger.

Who could that be?

Oh, baloney. It was a power play by Khruschev to prove that he was the dominant leader of the East-bloc, and to do so he directly threatened the United States with a sizable first strike contingent in Cuba. The deployment of Soviet nuclear weapons to Cuba was not some sort of defensive manuever, no, it was an incredibly irresponsible internal power play that sent the world to the brink.

Cut the condescending crap, I know my history and politics pretty damn well, and if you want to talk to me like one talks to a pre-schooler, then I'm outta here.

I dunno. Do we want North Korea to become China's smallest province? :(

I want North Korea to become China's smallest province. Kim Jong is insane, and North Korea has is so poor and corrupt that Kim has nothing to lose really. An independept North Korea is a loose canon. However, if North Korea was invaded by China, Kim would be killed and the threat of North Korea would disapear.

::Deleted::

All circumstances are 'clearly exceptional', if you are the people being clearly excepted.

The 'clearly exceptional' circumstances in that case were, we wanted to obliterate them, and they disliked the idea. SO we nuked them, and devil take the hindmost.



We used them once. That is enough, and makes us the most dangerous nation on the planet. We threatened to use them again. So, we are dangerous, AND we don't mind using the threat.



Of course it was the Russians. They wanted something of an empire, and we can't have that, now, can we? The fact that there WAS a 'brink-of-war' event means that there must have been (at least) two active players. Russia was one, and the other was the only nation ever to use the nuclear advantage in anger.

Who could that be?

I think your anger at the USA is clouding your judgement with regards to nuclear proliferation. Your anger is leading you to accept a greater possibility of nuclear war and terrorism just to spite America.

Israel is an ally. We've got an interest in making sure they aren't overrun and exterminated.


Yes - we vitally need what Israel gives us. A constant thorn in the side of the middle east, that is turning a large portion of the world's population against us.


Yeah, one time during a WORLD WAR to avoid an invasion that would have killed many, many more soldiers and civilians than the two nuclear weapons did.


Or no invasion. Curious you don't include that in the possible outcomes.


Sure. The Imperial Japanese and the Soviets were innocent. It's always the big bad USA that provokes every conflict. Shame on us.Yeah, can't wait to conquer North Korea and add it to our empire. We desperately need their major resource, starving, brainwashed people.

Strategic? Why do we have troops in SOUTH Korea? Their natural resources?

No, NK has not declared war on the US, but they have done something very stupid, which is typical of Kim Jong Il.

This morning, CNN and MSNBC repeated reports from South Korea's main news agency that they were contacted directly by "unnamed North Korean foreign affairs officers" (read: designated leakers) who stated that "they sincerely hoped that this would all be resolved before there is an unfortunate incident involving a missile launch" and that they hope "this will open talks with the US."

Obviously, NK is trying to pressure the US into breaking Bush's idiotic rule against talking to them directly. They are doing it in a blundering, childish way, but this kind of brinksmanship is typical of them. What makes it dangerous is that Bush/Cheney et al. are such trigger-happy bastards that we cannot predict how they will react. NK is waving a red flag in front of a very stupid and violent bull.

Or no invasion. Curious you don't include that in the possible outcomes.
Lot's of Japanese people die, no matter what the outcome, that is, except an American surrender.



Strategic? Why do we have troops in SOUTH Korea? Their natural resources?

Get off it, the ROK is a vital economic partner, with a sizable economic base, many large firms who provide many products to the American consumer (Hyundai, Samsung and LG just to name a few). Furthermore, the troops were initially deployed in the mindset of the times. If the US had not deployed to the ROK, our European allies would have most likely begun to question our commitment to their defense as well.

What makes it dangerous is that Bush/Cheney et al. are such trigger-happy bastards that we cannot predict how they will react. NK is waving a red flag in front of a very stupid and violent bull.

http://static.flickr.com/13/13912753_a7881f380a_m.jpg

I want North Korea to become China's smallest province. Kim Jong is insane, and North Korea has is so poor and corrupt that Kim has nothing to lose really. An independept North Korea is a loose canon. However, if North Korea was invaded by China, Kim would be killed and the threat of North Korea would disapear.

I don't know how South Korea would take that if China crosses the border right now would South Korea come to its aid?

We threatened to use them if and only if the Soviets used them first. How the hell does that make us more dangerous?


Because, although both parties used threats, still - to this day - only one has fulfilled the threat.

``
Oh, baloney. It was a power play by Khruschev to prove that he was the dominant leader of the East-bloc, and to do so he directly threatened the United States with a sizable first strike contingent in Cuba. The deployment of Soviet nuclear weapons to Cuba was not some sort of defensive manuever, no, it was an incredibly irresponsible internal power play that sent the world to the brink.


I'm sure it could be argued that Cuba was an attempt to secure national sovereignty, against the nuclear potential of a dangerous threat.

Much like the current Korea scenario... no?


Cut the condescending crap, I know my history and politics pretty damn well, and if you want to talk to me like one talks to a pre-schooler, then I'm outta here.

And yet, you were explaining it to me, up above. If you tell me - it's okay, but if I question your assertions, I'm patronising?

Yes - we vitally need what Israel gives us. A constant thorn in the side of the middle east, that is turning a large portion of the world's population against us. Israel is a foothold and a source of intelligence in a strategically important region filled with unfriendly governments. Damn straight we'll defend them.



Or no invasion. Curious you don't include that in the possible outcomes. We were at war with a nation that tried to conquer all of Asia and had attacked us on our own soil. It was a long and brutal world war. Half measures were unacceptable. The enemy government had to be eliminated so that such a thing wouldn't happen again.



Strategic? Why do we have troops in SOUTH Korea? Their natural resources?South Korea is a major trading partner. Also the Korean war never actually ended. We maintain troops there in case the North decides to start up the fighting again.

Israel is a foothold and a source of intelligence in a strategically important region filled with unfriendly governments.


Who are unfriendly because...


Damn straight we'll defend them. We were at war with a nation that tried to conquer all of Asia and had attacked us on our own soil. It was a long and brutal world war. Half measures were unacceptable. The enemy government had to be eliminated so that such a thing wouldn't happen again.


The same arguments could be made about the current warlike mentality in the Capitol?


South Korea is a major trading partner. Also the Korean war never actually ended. We maintain troops there in case the North decides to start up the fighting again.

So - you appreciate that empire is sometimes about strategy, not about resources?

Here's hoping China decides enough of their crap and steamrolls 'em.
The Chinese have said that military action is absolutely out of the question.

I think your anger at the USA is clouding your judgement with regards to nuclear proliferation. Your anger is leading you to accept a greater possibility of nuclear war and terrorism just to spite America.

I have no anger.

I have no sympathies towards the NK regime. I have no desire to see nuclear war OR terrorism encouraged.

I'd argue that it wasn't my judgement that was clouded... current US foreign policy has put us at war, or close to war, all round the globe. And now we are playing hypocrit.

Because, although both parties used threats, still - to this day - only one has fulfilled the threat.



I'm sure it could be argued that Cuba was an attempt to secure national sovereignty, against the nuclear potential of a dangerous threat.

Much like the current Korea scenario... no?



And yet, you were explaining it to me, up above. If you tell me - it's okay, but if I question your assertions, I'm patronising?

I think you confuse political posturing with a meaningful willingness to use these weapons at a whim. The simple fact that the US has not used these weapons since World War 2 is a testimant to its self control, especially as several circumstances may well have warented their use(pre-emptivly even).

And in WW2, I would argue the United States, did not, and could not fully grasp the magnitude of the destructive power of these weapons both from the immediate use, and the prologned destructive side effects [radiation]. Their use was for a most exceptional circumstance (ending a World War) in which the altnerative would have been the deaths of millions of more lives (many of whom would have been civilian). After witnessing the power of these weapons.. we today have a better perspective over their effects.. and as such are more responsible with them.

As others have said.. you are simply blinded by your own discontent with the United States. Of all the worlds nations, we are the ones who can be most trusted, BECAUSE our history is blackened by its use.. not inspite of it!

I think you confuse political posturing with a meaningful willingness to use these weapons at a whim. The simple fact that the US has not used these weapons since World War 2 is a testimant to its self control, especially as several circumstances may well have warented their use(pre-emptivly even).

And in WW2, I would argue the United States, did not, and could not fully grasp the magnitude of the destructive power of these weapons both from the immediate use, and the prologned destructive side effects [radiation]. Their use was for a most exceptional circumstance (ending a World War) in which the altnerative would have been the deaths of millions of more lives (many of whom would have been civilian). After witnessing the power of these weapons.. we today have a better perspective over their effects.. and as such are more responsible with them.

As others have said.. you are simply blinded by your own discontent with the United States. Of all the worlds nations, we are the ones who can be most trusted, BECAUSE our history is blackened by its use.. not inspite of it!

Would you put a convicted pedophile in a teaching position?

http://static.flickr.com/13/13912753_a7881f380a_m.jpg

Hilarious, except it's not just NK's ass, and there's a world war on the tip of that horn.

Would you put a convicted pedophile in a teaching position?

science shows conviced pedophiles have a propesity to reoffend with great statistical probability [there is no cure]. Our history shows this is not the case for us. Your analogy is non applicable.

In contrast, would I put a reformed drug abuser in a position to teach ? Most certinaly I would.. His/her experiances puts them in a unique position to know the dangers and importance of avoiding such activities

I think you confuse political posturing with a meaningful willingness to use these weapons at a whim. The simple fact that the US has not used these weapons since World War 2 is a testimant to its self control, especially as several circumstances may well have warented their use(pre-emptivly even).
The fact that any American could think that about nukes (and that some actually do think it) is proof that we cannot be trusted with them.

And in WW2, I would argue the United States, did not, and could not fully grasp the magnitude of the destructive power of these weapons both from the immediate use, and the prologned destructive side effects [radiation]. Their use was for a most exceptional circumstance (ending a World War) in which the altnerative would have been the deaths of millions of more lives (many of whom would have been civilian). After witnessing the power of these weapons.. we today have a better perspective over their effects.. and as such are more responsible with them.
Which makes Bush's programs to develop new ones that will be easier to deploy all the more indefensible.

As others have said.. you are simply blinded by your own discontent with the United States. Of all the worlds nations, we are the ones who can be most trusted, BECAUSE our history is blackened by its use.. not inspite of it!
If the US really felt that way, it would have abandoned such weapons long ago and unilaterally. Instead, the Pentagon is seeking new, more usable nukes. Your argument sounds like happy-prop (the kind of propaganda that is supposed to make us feel good about ourselves). It does not reflect reality.

science shows conviced pedophiles have a propesity to reoffend with great statistical probability [there is no cure]. Our history shows this is not the case for us. Your analogy is non applicable.

In contrast, would I put a reformed drug abuser in a position to teach ? Most certinaly I would.. His/her experiances puts them in a unique position to know the dangers and importance of avoiding such activities

The 'drug abuser' is nothing like parallel.

In the case of the reformed drug user, you have the notion of reform, and the fact that the 'harm' was internalised. Your idea of a ex-druggie teaching children is also inappropriate... 'children' were not the drug of choice.

Would you put a convicted drug-DEALER in charge of a pharmacy? Would you make a drunk the boss of a bottling plant?

The statistics on nuclear weapons.... perhaps we should examine what we know about that. Two nations have ever really pushed the envelope on threats, and only one has followed through. That's the grand total of the statistics. The statistics thus favour a 100% need to be wary about ONE antion's policy on nuclear armament. And, strangely - that nation is not Korean.

The fact that any American could think that about nukes (and that some actually do think it) is proof that we cannot be trusted with them.


Which makes Bush's programs to develop new ones that will be easier to deploy all the more indefensible.


If the US really felt that way, it would have abandoned such weapons long ago and unilaterally. Instead, the Pentagon is seeking new, more usable nukes. Your argument sounds like happy-prop (the kind of propaganda that is supposed to make us feel good about ourselves). It does not reflect reality.


Thinking and doing are two different things arnt they.. plenty of people think we should just whipe out the middle east and be done with all the blood shed that has come from that region over the past 100 years. Plenty of people "Think" we should kill bush and replace him with a more reasonable president.. yet the fact that we dont (Because we realize it is an unreasonable proposition) is what seporates us from those who have control and those who dont. No government offical has come out seriously considering the use (premtive of otherwise) of necular weapons against North Korea.

As well.. the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction is a proven defense mechanism which got us through the Cold War realitivly unscathed.. and unlike every other war before it... the Cold War was generally one with no direct confrontations (for this express purpose). The Cold War is a testiment to the usefulness of MAD, and as such is a sufficent reason to keep these weapons. This does not however means we should not do all in our power to restrict others from attaing it, especially unstable actor such as North Korea, because MAD only works when all parties act in a logical manner... North Korea has proven to be outside these bounds (and has a history of selling their miliary weapon systems further risking proliferation).

They claim they will consider sanctions by the US as an act of war.

So the US will go to the UN and with China's help..impose sanctions and then they will jump up and down on their little midget legs and scream " its not fair" and go back to blowing up their broken toys.

oh how I'm gonna hate myself in the morning for posting about politics in Jolt again.....

Ok folks, here's a little run-down of what's going on.

* The NK atomic (not nuclear, two totally seperate technologies) warhead detonated was the equivalent of 550 tons of TNT, or .55 kilotons. For reference the atomic warhead dropped on hiroshima was 18kt and left a quarter mile diameter blast. That means that the blast radius for this charge would have been very small, 100 meters. That means one of three things: 1) their fuel is not pure enough to go supercritical and thus unleash an atomic reaction. That means they're still a few years away from a viable warhead, 2) They screwed up fusing it all right, so they don't really know what they're doing, and just the detonator went off. That means they're close to a viable reaction and it threw up enough rads from a dirty-bomb style explosion to set off our satellites. 3) They have a viable atomic warhead barely capable of destroying a city block.

*In the Korean war, we had a jeep-mounted recoiless-rifle that fired a nuclear-tipped rocket. this was called Davy Crockett. It took only months to develop this weapon which was never used in anger, and it had around a .18 kiloton blast. Now this was back in the 50's and our reactor/purification technology was far behind what Bill Clinton gave Kim Jung-Il. So Il basically has a charge 3 times more powerful than the USA's least powerful weapon.

*The MOAB, Daisy cutter, and about a hundred other conventional weapons the USA has in its inventory is larger in blast than NK's lonely atomic wathead.

*Personal Opinion: we must disarm North Korea by choice or by force. However, we must disarm them nonetheless. If they threaten atomic war, we give them that exactly. If they launch, we launch enough force to destroy them keenly and utterly. China will do nothing because its in their best interests to do nothing. Japan doesn't have the power to do it, and South Korea is too scared of a nuclear NK that they will do nothing unless attacked. We have got to take out those reactors and assembly plants, and we have to do it now.

I dont agree with sanctions against them either.

I'm afraid that will starve more NKorean citizens, kill more of their children and serve to turn some that arent happy with their leader now against the US and any allies we happen to have.

It'll give Jong Il more strength, more people will be behind him. He wont miss any Scotch or whores, but kids will die of starvation and lack of medication, he'll get to blame us.

And Chavez, Amendijad ,Castro, et al will amplify whatever he says and try to weaken any coalition.

Because, although both parties used threats, still - to this day - only one has fulfilled the threat.
Once again, under extraordinairy circumstances.



I'm sure it could be argued that Cuba was an attempt to secure national sovereignty, against the nuclear potential of a dangerous threat.

Much like the current Korea scenario... no?
It actually cannot be said that way, because Khruschev's memoirs are the basis for my assertions.



And yet, you were explaining it to me, up above. If you tell me - it's okay, but if I question your assertions, I'm patronising?

Oh, cut it. If you were to not take a patronising tone, I'd have no problem, but the tone you've taken with your writing is incredibly patronising, treating those who disagree with you like you're giving them an introductory lesson in International Affairs.

I dont agree with sanctions against them either.

I'm afraid that will starve more NKorean citizens, kill more of their children and serve to turn some that arent happy with their leader now against the US and any allies we happen to have.

It'll give Jong Il more strength, more people will be behind him. He wont miss any Scotch or whores, but kids will die of starvation and lack of medication, he'll get to blame us.they are starving now, because their "dear leader" put all the money on military and luxuries for himself. sanctions won't change a thing.

And Chavez, Amendijad ,Castro, et al will amplify whatever he says and try to weaken any coalition.
which prove the ideology about "axis of evil"

Once again, under extraordinairy circumstances.


Yes - we'd spent all that time and money building machinery to slaughter large numbers of people, and then most of the people had dropped their guns. We were left in the unfortunate situation of being forced to bomb the shit out of millions of innocents, yes?



It actually cannot be said that way, because Khruschev's memoirs are the basis for my assertions.


Which, one assumes, he wrote some time later, when he would have tried to magnify his own puissance.


Oh, cut it. If you were to not take a patronising tone, I'd have no problem, but the tone you've taken with your writing is incredibly patronising, treating those who disagree with you like you're giving them an introductory lesson in International Affairs.

I'm not here to debate whether or not one of us finds the other patronising. I find your response about memoirs somewhat condescending... but it is irrelevent. If you are going to attempt to 'tell it how it is', you must expect a certain amount of response in kind.

oh how I'm gonna hate myself in the morning for posting about politics in Jolt again.....

Ok folks, here's a little run-down of what's going on.

* The NK atomic (not nuclear, two totally seperate technologies) warhead detonated was the equivalent of 550 tons of TNT, or .55 kilotons. For reference the atomic warhead dropped on hiroshima was 18kt and left a quarter mile diameter blast. That means that the blast radius for this charge would have been very small, 100 meters. That means one of three things: 1) their fuel is not pure enough to go supercritical and thus unleash an atomic reaction. That means they're still a few years away from a viable warhead, 2) They screwed up fusing it all right, so they don't really know what they're doing, and just the detonator went off. That means they're close to a viable reaction and it threw up enough rads from a dirty-bomb style explosion to set off our satellites. 3) They have a viable atomic warhead barely capable of destroying a city block.

*In the Korean war, we had a jeep-mounted recoiless-rifle that fired a nuclear-tipped rocket. this was called Davy Crockett. It took only months to develop this weapon which was never used in anger, and it had around a .18 kiloton blast. Now this was back in the 50's and our reactor/purification technology was far behind what Bill Clinton gave Kim Jung-Il. So Il basically has a charge 3 times more powerful than the USA's least powerful weapon.

*The MOAB, Daisy cutter, and about a hundred other conventional weapons the USA has in its inventory is larger in blast than NK's lonely atomic wathead.

*Personal Opinion: we must disarm North Korea by choice or by force. However, we must disarm them nonetheless. If they threaten atomic war, we give them that exactly. If they launch, we launch enough force to destroy them keenly and utterly. China will do nothing because its in their best interests to do nothing. Japan doesn't have the power to do it, and South Korea is too scared of a nuclear NK that they will do nothing unless attacked. We have got to take out those reactors and assembly plants, and we have to do it now.

how nice of you to gamble with the lives of millions of people on a hunch the NK's have no nukes that work. None of the world powers want anything to do with a military conflict with the NK, that should suggest to you that they know something that you don't.

*In the Korean war, we had a jeep-mounted recoiless-rifle that fired a nuclear-tipped rocket. this was called Davy Crockett. It took only months to develop this weapon which was never used in anger, and it had around a .18 kiloton blast. Now this was back in the 50's and our reactor/purification technology was far behind what Bill Clinton gave Kim Jung-Il. So Il basically has a charge 3 times more powerful than the USA's least powerful weapon.You mean the one that had a greater range of radiation than actual firing range?

Thinking and doing are two different things arnt they.. plenty of people think we should just whipe out the middle east and be done with all the blood shed that has come from that region over the past 100 years. Plenty of people "Think" we should kill bush and replace him with a more reasonable president.. yet the fact that we dont (Because we realize it is an unreasonable proposition) is what seporates us from those who have control and those who dont. No government offical has come out seriously considering the use (premtive of otherwise) of necular weapons against North Korea.
You feel safe under a policy of "we hold out the option of launching a first nuclear strike (wink to the audience: don't worry, we won't really do it"? And what if, someday, a US president would really do it? We already have one that thinks he's on a misssion from god and who just pushed for legislation that allows him to eliminate habeas corpus and torture prisoners in direct contradiction of the Constitution he swore to uphold, a president who has already launched one unprovoked war of choice, and a vice president who seems to love military action more than he loves reality. How unlikely is it that we could ever have a president who would launch a first nuclear strike -- especially (to invoke the flip side of your argument), since we already did it once before?

Sorry, but such Pollyannaism does not appeal to me.

As well.. the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction is a proven defense mechanism which got us through the Cold War realitivly unscathed.. and unlike every other war before it... the Cold War was generally one with no direct confrontations (for this express purpose). The Cold War is a testiment to the usefulness of MAD, and as such is a sufficent reason to keep these weapons. This does not however means we should not do all in our power to restrict others from attaing it, especially unstable actor such as North Korea, because MAD only works when all parties act in a logical manner... North Korea has proven to be outside these bounds (and has a history of selling their miliary weapon systems further risking proliferation).
I don't know about you, but I grew up in the MAD world, and it was not fun. It was dominated by nihilism, cynicism and a sense of impending doom and constant danger. Maybe you were there, too, but had a good time. I don't know, but from my point of view, it did not feel like a stable world at all.

You mean the one that had a greater range of radiation than actual firing range?
Thus making it, perhaps, the world's most perfect nuclear weapon, combining the best of both destructive power and symbolic irony.

As well as a testament to the good old American know-how of the geniuses at companies like Raytheon, GE, and other profiteers -- sorry, I mean military contractors -- and the jackasses who hire them. Yes, by all means, let's trust them with our future.

<snip>
Which, one assumes, he wrote some time later, when he would have tried to magnify his own puissance.
<snip>

Off topic, but is it possible to magnify puissance? ;)

Here's hoping China decides enough of their crap and steamrolls 'em.I traveled the world and the 7 seas, and this I can tell you, sweet dreams are made of these..

Yes. Everyone is happier when the US invades them.ohhh!!! I love it
gotta sig-it.

You mean the one that had a greater range of radiation than actual firing range?

A common myth is that with no shielding or protection from either blast or radiation, a Davy Crockett crew would have been unlikely to survive any engagement, also claiming that the blast area of the warhead was greater than the range of the weapon. In fact, though the device could be fired to a dangerously short range by an inept crew, the maximum range of both versions is far longer than the distance at which dangerous direct radiation, thermal, shockwave/blast, or debris are likely to endanger the crew. At a range of as little as half of the maximum range for the 120mm version (1 kilometer) no ill effects are likely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29

I say we wait until he blows up Soth Korea or japan or fires a missile in our direction ..I live on the East coast so ..hey think of the deaths caused by a NK strike as a valuable sacrifice to convince all the peace mongers that letting fruitcke crazy dictators play with nukes is not a good idea.

Let him go .

A liberal or a Democrat will never find a job ..all countries who even threaten to develope a nuke will be incinerated instantly and a huge party will erupt in the streets . No more bullshit arguing ..well at least until the generation that had to take the casualties dies and the new one forgets yet again the lessons of the past .

I see no problem ..he kills a few hundred thousand to a million people ..in turn he is destroyed and removed from the DNA pool along with his country...and all the rest of the idiots seeking nukes or WMDS have a laser sight on their chest for life. Or the few minutes they get to live ..bye bye Iran.... So who's next ?might as well get it over with and think about it ...no more listening to bullshit debates and bargains ! No more treaties never meant to be followed ...just action.

I think its a great trade off..too bad about the victims but hey thats the price for peace right ?...or being total fucking idiots with no balls .

Someone call Chinese take out and point them at Kim Ill dung....he's about ripe for harvest .

* The NK atomic (not nuclear, two totally seperate technologies) warhead detonated was the equivalent of 550 tons of TNT, or .55 kilotons.

Ah, not quite. Atomic and Nuclear, when applied to weapon systems, mean the same thing: a mass of transuranics slammed together to create a supercritical mass, causing a fast fission reaction. An Atomic Bomb, or a Nuclear Device, are the same thing, just with updated teminology.

The term Thermonuclear, on the other hand, refers to a fusion weapon that uses a Nuclear Device as a triggering mechanism.

Otherwise, I agree with your general assessment. We even have a double excuse for going into NK - first, there is no peace treaty ending the Korean War, and second, the violation of the NNP Treaty is itself an acknowledged casus belli.

oh how I'm gonna hate myself in the morning for posting about politics in Jolt again.....

Ok folks, here's a little run-down of what's going on.

* The NK atomic (not nuclear, two totally seperate technologies) warhead detonated was the equivalent of 550 tons of TNT, or .55 kilotons. For reference the atomic warhead dropped on hiroshima was 18kt and left a quarter mile diameter blast. That means that the blast radius for this charge would have been very small, 100 meters. That means one of three things: 1) their fuel is not pure enough to go supercritical and thus unleash an atomic reaction. That means they're still a few years away from a viable warhead, 2) They screwed up fusing it all right, so they don't really know what they're doing, and just the detonator went off. That means they're close to a viable reaction and it threw up enough rads from a dirty-bomb style explosion to set off our satellites. 3) They have a viable atomic warhead barely capable of destroying a city block.Radiation is the issue in a nuclear weapon, not the damage to buildings.

*In the Korean war, we had a jeep-mounted recoiless-rifle that fired a nuclear-tipped rocket. this was called Davy Crockett. It took only months to develop this weapon which was never used in anger, and it had around a .18 kiloton blast. Now this was back in the 50's and our reactor/purification technology was far behind what Bill Clinton gave Kim Jung-Il. So Il basically has a charge 3 times more powerful than the USA's least powerful weapon. Yeild of a Davy Crockett was between .1kt and .2kt so you're pretty good there.

*The MOAB, Daisy cutter, and about a hundred other conventional weapons the USA has in its inventory is larger in blast than NK's lonely atomic wathead.
A MOAB has the explosive power of only 11 TONS of tnt, which is well short of 550 tons. Diasy cutter is nowhere near as powerful as a MOAB.
*Personal Opinion: we must disarm North Korea by choice or by force. However, we must disarm them nonetheless. If they threaten atomic war, we give them that exactly. If they launch, we launch enough force to destroy them keenly and utterly. China will do nothing because its in their best interests to do nothing. Japan doesn't have the power to do it, and South Korea is too scared of a nuclear NK that they will do nothing unless attacked. We have got to take out those reactors and assembly plants, and we have to do it now.


North Korea is probably years away from detonating a real nuclear weapon, I'd say they blew most of their plutonium trying to get this test to look impressive.

Ah, not quite. Atomic and Nuclear, when applied to weapon systems, mean the same thing: a mass of transuranics slammed together to create a supercritical mass, causing a fast fission reaction. An Atomic Bomb, or a Nuclear Device, are the same thing, just with updated teminology.

The term Thermonuclear, on the other hand, refers to a fusion weapon that uses a Nuclear Device as a triggering mechanism.

Otherwise, I agree with your general assessment. We even have a double excuse for going into NK - first, there is no peace treaty ending the Korean War, and second, the violation of the NNP Treaty is itself an acknowledged casus belli.
Intresting point. Has NK just violated the treaty by developing its little nuclear firecracker?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29
Yes... now what did I say in my quote? Blast or radiation range?

Otherwise, I agree with your general assessment. We even have a double excuse for going into NK - first, there is no peace treaty ending the Korean War, and second, the violation of the NNP Treaty is itself an acknowledged casus belli. bloody amazing how quick people are to volunteer other peoples deaths-when you say "we" does that mean you will be leading the way into NK and posible having your children killed as colateral damage.... or, does it mean someone else's kid will sacrifice their life to appease you desire for war.

Yes... now what did I say in my quote? Blast or radiation range?

Range of dangerous radiation is less than half the weapon's effective range.

What good is a treaty that no one has the balls or will to enforce ??:D :D :D

Kimm ill dung already knows this minor fact.


Your going to have to accept the fact that he will either get what he wants by blackmail with nukes or kill some people to make a point...or both...before anyone actualy acts ...if then even..depends who he kills ...


The midget should have been smacked down thirty minutes after his ballistic missle firecrackers broke... Talk about a violation..and the NPT treaty....bwaaahhhahahahaha toilet paper is scarce in NK...

Enforcement ??? OF ANYTHING ????

Stll waiting.

hes actually going to have to kill some stuff .

The world loves money more than its hates midgets with nukes.

North Korea is probably years away from detonating a real nuclear weapon, I'd say they blew most of their plutonium trying to get this test to look impressive.

various intelligence estimates say the NK's have enough for at least 6 weapons, other sources speculate as many as a 100. So maybe you might want to call the CIA and correct them as you have better information.

* The NK atomic (not nuclear, two totally seperate technologies) warhead

Could you elaborate on this? I would be extremely excited to know about the difference.



3) They have a viable atomic warhead barely capable of destroying a city block.
Have you ever seen a battleship firing?
Even a 550-kt bomb has a thousand times more power.

*Personal Opinion: we must disarm North Korea by choice or by force. However, we must disarm them nonetheless. If they threaten atomic war, we give them that exactly. If they launch, we launch enough force to destroy them keenly and utterly.
Yes, who cares if we lose a city or two?

And then to the next one. And to every country who progresses to nuclear tech level. However, more precisely, these weapons will be given to and tested by terrorist groups or proxies - just as a safety measure.

There are nuclear charges of up to 1 kt that can be carried in a backpack or easily hidden in a car. A lot of them. With a good but reasonable amount of money a willing country and consequently their terrorist group can get hands on them. They can be from Russia or from U.S.; there always are people that can be bought. It takes just will to revenge. Relying on use of nuclear power is not a good strategy. It's like shooting everyone in your way with a gun knowing no one else has one. For a time you'll do fine. One day someone will stab you in the back and you get your oblong box.

Yes... now what did I say in my quote? Blast or radiation range?

You were wrong on both counts.

Reposted with bold:

A common myth is that with no shielding or protection from either blast or radiation, a Davy Crockett crew would have been unlikely to survive any engagement, also claiming that the blast area of the warhead was greater than the range of the weapon. In fact, though the device could be fired to a dangerously short range by an inept crew, the maximum range of both versions is far longer than the distance at which dangerous direct radiation, thermal, shockwave/blast, or debris are likely to endanger the crew. At a range of as little as half of the maximum range for the 120mm version (1 kilometer) no ill effects are likely.

Intresting point. Has NK just violated the treaty by developing its little nuclear firecracker?you can only violate a treaty if you are still a member..

for example if Brazil and Iran decides to leave the treaty.. they can start making Nukes.

unless they have a celular-type contract. (2 year contract.. 90 days notice, etc) :D

you can only violate a treaty if you are still a member..

for example if Brazil and Iran decides to leave the treaty.. they can start making Nukes.

unless they have a celular-type contract. (2 year contract.. 90 days notice, etc) :D

No not that one.I was talking bout the ceasefire.Sorry I did not make myself clear.

.. the NPT treaty....bwaaahhhahahahaha toilet paper ...Yes..

It is toilet paper.

No not that one.I was talking bout the ceasefire.Sorry I did not make myself clear.that cease-fire does not allow one of the sides.. to develop weapons???!!!!

LOL.. who wrote that cease fire??
(Who am i kidding?) probably the same people who designed the Israel-Hezbollah cease-fire

What good is a treaty that no one has the balls or will to enforce ??:D :D :D

Kimm ill dung already knows this minor fact.


Your going to have to accept the fact that he will either get what he wants by blackmail with nukes or kill some people to make a point...or both...before anyone actualy acts ...if then even..depends who he kills ...


The midget should have been smacked down thirty minutes after his ballistic missle firecrackers broke... Talk about a violation..and the NPT treaty....bwaaahhhahahahaha toilet paper is scarce in NK...

Enforcement ??? OF ANYTHING ????

Stll waiting.

hes actually going to have to kill some stuff .

The world loves money more than its hates midgets with nukes.

and think what brought this all on-"axis of evil" speach-nukes are good deterent to invasion by americans,if Iraq had them there would have been no invasion.

and to defuse the situation NK only wanted to open a bi-lateral negotiation with the USA, not a 6 country talk. So now we have all this tension over a stubborn unwillingingness to talk with someone from the "axis of evil".

and think what brought this all on-"axis of evil" speach-nukes are good deterent to invasion by americans,if Iraq had them there would have been no invasion.

and to defuse the situation NK only wanted to open a bi-lateral negotiation with the USA, not a 6 country talk. So now we have all this tension over a stubborn unwillingingness to talk with someone from the "axis of evil".


So on one hand the FAILED bi -lateral talks you expound on...just how do you think he GOT his nukes ..are again brought up...

Must be BUshes fault for getting THE major force in the area CHINA engaged and the targets who will suffer ,,,South Korea and Japan Invoved with any future talks with the country that screwed the guy who went with the Bi latteral talks...

You MUST be from the Chamberlain school of diplomacy were one country gets to give away and make decisions for the rest without them being present at neggotiations.

But hey despite the fact you are a bit lax on your history.......


Why not just enforce the FUCKING EXISTING AGGREEMENTS ???


WHAT FUCKING NEED IS THERE FOR MORE TALKS ????

THE LAST ONE YOU HAD IS FUCKING BEING IGNORED .


Just thought you should know that tiny flaw in your argument..

Go back to singing Bush is Satan songs again ,

Have any of you considered the fact that the explosion might actually have been a large conventional explosion? Its been done before to 1kt at least i believe, if not more, so why couldn't NK try it so they can scare a few people?

However i don't subscribe to that theory, there have been rumours of an NK nuclear test for some time and i believe that it would be stupid to pretend to own a nuclear, or atomic, weapon (im not a technical person, all i know is they can do big damage, thats good enough!) as the USA used this as a major reason to attack Iraq; except this time, even NK says they have an atomic capability!

Another point to consider is the fact that small nuclear warheads are much harder to create than large ones (when i say small i mean the type that could be launched from artilery or on missiles) and that leads me to think that this was simply an atomic test gone wrong, and i read somewhere this was what an SK media outlet reported supposedly quoting a NK official that the tests had not been as expected.

And lastly, from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6040494.stm):

"A one-off test may be a sign it has only limited quantities of weapons-grade plutonium" with regards to Free Sex and Beer's post.

I asked that very question the day it was reported. Wouldn't surprise me if they faked it.

Have any of you considered the fact that the explosion might actually have been a large conventional explosion? Its been done before to 1kt at least i believe, if not more, so why couldn't NK try it so they can scare a few people?

However i don't subscribe to that theory, there have been rumours of an NK nuclear test for some time and i believe that it would be stupid to pretend to own a nuclear, or atomic, weapon (im not a technical person, all i know is they can do big damage, thats good enough!) as the USA used this as a major reason to attack Iraq; except this time, even NK says they have an atomic capability!

Another point to consider is the fact that small nuclear warheads are much harder to create than large ones (when i say small i mean the type that could be launched from artilery or on missiles) and that leads me to think that this was simply an atomic test gone wrong, and i read somewhere this was what an SK media outlet reported supposedly quoting a NK official that the tests had not been as expected.

And lastly, from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6040494.stm):

"A one-off test may be a sign it has only limited quantities of weapons-grade plutonium" with regards to Free Sex and Beer's post.
Precisely. As of yet, we have only NK's word for what they did and how well it went, and even they don't sound very sure. The analyses by the US, China and Japan have yet to be finished. But our local warmongers don't seem to care much. They seem pretty eager to start the next war before the results come in, just it case it turns out they don't have a real excuse.

Intresting point. Has NK just violated the treaty by developing its little nuclear firecracker?

Technically, the casus belli occurs whenever a country violates a treaty agreement with another country. For instance, when the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty with the Soviet Union, the USSR had a Cause for War in effect against the USA. Whether that applied to the USSR's successor the Russian Federation, is more questionable, but seeing as the USA has pretty much acknowledged that it's other treaties with the USSR are still binding (such as SALT, START and the Mid-Range Missile Treaty), it probably does.

Of course, a Cause for War need not be acted upon. That is up to the aggrieved party. Which in this case, is every other signatory to the NNPT.

I asked that very question the day it was reported. Wouldn't surprise me if they faked it.

Well, if it was a real nuke, it was the Chris de Burgh of nuclear weapons, so you wouldn't be mistaken for thinking that.

Well, if it was a real nuke, it was the Chris de Burgh of nuclear weapons, so you wouldn't be mistaken for thinking that.

It had a monobrow and hot daughter? :confused:

It had a monobrow and hot daughter? :confused:

:D yeah sounds about right. That daughter has yet to be unleasheed to this world through...you might actually be suprisingly right in some weird way :P

Did they? Hadn't noticed...

Oh well. Surely our competent administration can...

What? GWB's in charge of that?

Since 2000?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



/joke

Reduce that font size at once. You're breaking the whole page.

Did they? Hadn't noticed...

Oh well. Surely our competent administration can...

What? GWB's in charge of that?

Since 2000?

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



/joke

You broke the internet. Fix it.

Did they? Hadn't noticed...

Oh well. Surely our competent administration can...

What? GWB's in charge of that?

Since 2000?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



/joke

Linky (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/AAAAAAAAA%21)

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/2/25/Blue_Screen_of_AAAAA.jpgYou broke the internet. Fix it.hammer time !! :D

bloody hell thought my PC was broke there, the repply box disappered.

Nice link to AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! or whatever it was :D

On topic, what if NK's president read these forums? OHHHHHHH

bloody hell thought my PC was broke there, the repply box disappered.

Nice link to AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! or whatever it was :D

On topic, what if NK's president read these forums? OHHHHHHHNah, he is too busy downloading Porn and playing NFS "Most Wanted" Tokio Drift , (a limited game version.. one copy made.. and he is got it)

I think it's time we do a little back scratching with China.

China begins to push for NK to reunify with SK on SK's terms.

US begins to push for Taiwan to reunify with China, on terms similar to the current state of affairs in Hong Kong.

Could it work? The only way China doesn't have a big mess to deal with is if it is South Korea's mess...and they obviously want Taiwan.

Would the Chinese buy into such an idea? Would it play well over here?

I think it's time we do a little back scratching with China.

China begins to push for NK to reunify with SK on SK's terms.

US begins to push for Taiwan to reunify with China, on terms similar to the current state of affairs in Hong Kong.

Could it work? The only way China doesn't have a big mess to deal with is if it is South Korea's mess...and they obviously want Taiwan.

Would the Chinese buy into such an idea? Would it play well over here?this is what I have learned traveling..

The Chinese people (its a cultural thing) can be extremely pacient.. In their minds Taiwan will eventually join (just like other former western colonies did).. In their minds Taiwan is already theirs..

So you would be offering them something that (in their minds) already belong to them..

You need to find some other bargaining chip..

I do think Korea should be made whole again.. just like Germany.

The problem may be that reunification is not being favored by Beijing.. and is definitely NOT being favored by Washington. (and they are calling the shots)

this is what I have learned traveling..

The Chinese people (its a cultural thing) can be extremely pacient.. In their minds Taiwan will eventually join (just like other former western colonies did).. In their minds Taiwan is already theirs..

So you would be offering them something that (in their minds) already belong to them..

You need to find some other bargaining chip..

Lost of tiger penises.

Lost of tiger penises.You dont got enough size. ^^

Here's hoping China decides enough of their crap and steamrolls 'em.

I agree..I would like to see China in some action since they became so powerful, so the US could study on how they fight a war...for later infomation (if needed)

The Chinese people (its a cultural thing) can be extremely pacient.. In their minds Taiwan will eventually join (just like other former western colonies did).. In their minds Taiwan is already theirs..
join? are you suggesting Tibet voluntarily joined China...:rolleyes:

To answer the question: There has been no official declaration of war. Kind of like with the wars in the mid-east right now and the Cold War.

No! Not "just" declared war.
I believe they did that, 10 seconds after Bush added them to
the Axis of Evil.
Politics 101: Politics is not a cowboy movie!

Yes it is.:p

Off topic, but is it possible to magnify puissance? ;)

Oh sure.... in fact, last night...

Erm... yes, you're right. It's off-topic... :o

ohhh!!! I love it
gotta sig-it.

*is honoured*

Why, thank you. :)

I don't see taiwan joining China for anything, US pressure or not so i believe that would fail.

Also i don't think NK would just give in to china to join SK as a new combined nation, remember their saying they'l carry on with nuclear tests if the US tries to get stuff imposed onto them such as the UN making their lives harder.

But yes, it would be good if china steam rolled NK until china discovered that NK was a great place to invade other nations or that they could pull out, leaving a puppet dictatorship which they could arm and make into a very powerful and dangerous nation giving them a big card to play against us westerners....

However it seems to me that Russia is alone a lot now, how do they get on with China and NK etc?

China doesn't want to see refugees pouring across it's border and doesn't want to see a new regime, possibly hostile towards the Chinese's interests take hold in N. Korea. Because of that they won't do much against Kim's regime.
Well they already have refugees pouring across the border, they just pick 'em up and dump them back in Korea.

I dunno. Do we want North Korea to become China's smallest province? :(
China has no interest in annexing NK. What would happen is what 90%+ koreans want. That is, Korea. SK would annex NK and drop the S. It'll happen soonish, I think. Kim can't hold out long. People see him building nukes and they slap their heads and despair. I see Kim building nukes, flying missiles unsuccessfully into the ocean, and eterting nukes and I see a desperate little Korean, shaking his stick maniacly at the rest of the world. NK is on the brink of total collapse. Now Kim may send a Nuke to Japan though, in a final act desperation, but it'll probably hit the sea of Japan mid way.

join? are you suggesting Tibet voluntarily joined China...:rolleyes:

500 years ago?

I don't see taiwan joining China for anything, US pressure or not so i believe that would fail.

Also i don't think NK would just give in to china to join SK as a new combined nation, remember their saying they'l carry on with nuclear tests if the US tries to get stuff imposed onto them such as the UN making their lives harder.

But yes, it would be good if china steam rolled NK until china discovered that NK was a great place to invade other nations or that they could pull out, leaving a puppet dictatorship which they could arm and make into a very powerful and dangerous nation giving them a big card to play against us westerners....

However it seems to me that Russia is alone a lot now, how do they get on with China and NK etc?
Taiwan will join China if and when the CCP is gone. When China is a capitalist westernised democracy, which respects human rights and such, Taiwan will almost certainly join. But not while the CCP is still choking the place with it's tendrils.

Taiwan will join China if and when the CCP is gone. When China is a capitalist westernised democracy, which respects human rights and such, Taiwan will almost certainly join. But not while the CCP is still choking the place with it's tendrils.

Maybe so, but thats not going to happen for some time, although history shows all such governments in the past have fallen somehow or another, i'd say mostly when one leader dies or whatever and the next leader isn't as harsh on the population and more open to outside critisisms. Over time civil rights and political freedoms come into play. Another reason for this is if the economy starts to flail then a nation may need outside help, or to make their market freer. Now to get investment being allowed by other governments then it may be that better civil rights will be expected etc.

Anyway thats my take on how it goes :P, but theres always something that bucks the trend!

500 years ago?Tibet was invaded by China in 1950 after they were refused a seat in the UN(Soviets would veto it) The Chinese they were liberating the Tibetans fron Anglo-american imperilaism.

No, gathering from that article, North Korea claims that the US has committed an act of war against it.
:headbang:
you believe it?
and btw,what is "it"

Radiation is the issue in a nuclear weapon, not the damage to buildings. Yeild of a Davy Crockett was between .1kt and .2kt so you're pretty good there. A MOAB has the explosive power of only 11 TONS of tnt, which is well short of 550 tons. Diasy cutter is nowhere near as powerful as a MOAB.


No, the MOAB weighs 11 tons, but it uses an ammonium-nitrate slurry that is more explosive than nitro-cellulose. Its blast radius is a good mile. Thats where the power is measured, in comparative weight of TNT. This means it would be 130 times more powerful than anything the NKs have. (1/4 mile*18kt=72kt per mile 72/.55=130)

~~~


* The NK atomic (not nuclear, two totally separate technologies) warhead


Could you elaborate on this? I would be extremely excited to know about the difference.

Nuclear reactions involve the fusion of atoms while atomic reactions use fission. That is the difference between the atomic and hydrogen bombs. Fusion bombs are THOUSANDS of times more powerful than fission bombs like dropped on Hiroshima as compared to the fusion bomb dropped on Bikini Atoll. Fusion bombs actually require a fission bomb to set it off as it takes thousands of degrees K to jump start a fusion reaction and it is easier to use smaller atoms such as deuterium and tritium as compared to uranium or plutonium.

And yes, all this is standard high school physics stuff.



3) They have a viable atomic warhead barely capable of destroying a city block.

Have you ever seen a battleship firing?
Even a 550-kt bomb has a thousand times more power.


Actually, I have friends who used to work on battleships, including the Mighty Mo. Even with their 2200 pound HE charge it would only destroy a city block if the shockwave crushed the buildings. When I was making the city block comment, I mean by a ground-level detonation. For pete's sake, it was a 500-foot crater they created.
~~~

Have any of you considered the fact that the explosion might actually have been a large conventional explosion? Its been done before to 1kt at least i believe, if not more, so why couldn't NK try it so they can scare a few people?

Actually, you may be right. Its just come out that there is no reported radiation emitting from the blast site. If that's the case they just blew up a lot of HE. Here's the story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_nkorea

While I'm here...

AAAAHHH has been reduced.

Hotdogs2, reduce your sig to 8 lines or I'll be happy to do it for you. :p

Erastide
~Forum Moderator